Running head: LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 1

Less Drinking or Professional Sinking: Organizational Analysis

Chandler Mueller

Salem State University

LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 2

Part 1: CASE

Premier University (PU) is a medium size institution situated just outside of a large urban

area. Approximately 14,000 students are enrolled at PU; 11,000 of the total population are

undergraduate students while the remaining 3,000 make up the graduate student population. PU

has a rather large residential community of roughly 6,050 students (55% of undergraduate

students) who live in the 14 varying residence halls. The Residence Life staff at PU is made up

of Resident Assistants (undergraduate student employees), Residence Hall Directors, Area

Coordinators (Olivia Felds), and the Director of the department (Dr. James Porter). From there,

the director reports to the Vice President for Student Affairs. Other positions that also report to

the Vice President for Student Affairs include: the Director of Student Health and Wellness (Dr.

Paul Timmons) and the Dean of Students (William Stanford).

It is the beginning of the fall semester at Premier University and the institution is getting

into the swing of things for another academic year. After only a couple months into the session,

there has already been a number of alcohol related incidents within the residence halls that

resulted in student transports to the nearest hospital (14 miles/20 minutes away) for life

threatening blood-alcohol levels; an issue which has steadily inclined over the past three years at

Premier. The severity and frequency of the incidents have noticeably caused the residence hall

staff sever distress and caught the attention of the student newspaper. With the publicity and

the attention the incidents are causing, the casual biweekly meeting between Dr. James Porter,

Dean William Stanford, and Dr. Paul Timmons has been formally scheduled with the primary

topic of the meeting centered on the alcohol-related incidents and how to respond.

A couple days before the scheduled meeting, Dr. Porter was pulled away by a separate

issue and found that he was unable to attend. He asked Felds to sit-in in his place as a
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 3

representative for Residence Life and felt that she could offer useful insight given her experience

with similar issues. Felds appreciated Dr. Porters invitation and prepared for the meeting with a

list of empirically grounded approaches based on her research on the topic. When she showed

up, Dr. Timmons and Dean Stanford were already present. A couple moments later, Michael

Adams, the Alcohol-Drug Education Services Coordinator who reports to Dr. Timmons, arrived;

kicking off the meeting. The meeting began with Adams summary of what he learned about

issuing fines to students involved in alcohol related incidents during a webinar and suggested

that Premier should implement a similar strategy. Adams recommends that the fines should be

the first instalment of the accountability process regarding alcohol related sanctions. The fining

procedure would resemble the similar process of receiving a speeding ticket, in which case, the

undergraduate resident assistants would be the one distributing the fines.

Following Adams recommendation, Felds introduced her objections rooted in her

research. She noted that similar sanctioning procedures done at other institutions show highly

variable results regarding the effectiveness of using fines to decrease the number of alcohol

related incidents, especially on a long-term basis (Douglas, 2000, p.52). Dean Stanford hardly

considered her input or the evidence, reminded her that he has been in this field for quite some

time, and thought implementing the fine process is the best direction for Premier. She countered

with more research and practice shown to significantly decrease alcohol related incidents that

could be introduced into the residence halls. At this point Dean Stanford completely dismisses

Felds input and says just write down the information about fines and make sure Porter gets it

(Douglas, 2000, p.52). Feeling reduced and devalued, Felds hardly contributed the rest of the

meeting while taking notes on the new fining process.

LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 4

Following the meeting, Felds summarized the notes and briefly reflected on the

encounter. Growing increasingly irritated, Felds felt completely disregarded and questioned if

her development over the past couple years as a professional at Premier went entirely unnoticed.

She then discussed the meeting with Dr. Porter. After describing her experience and lack of

regard for her preparation and input, Dr. Porter excused the behavior of the men and justified it

by explaining their existing relationship and rapport and asked that she continue to attend the

meetings as he needed to focus his attention elsewhere. She expressed her distaste on continuing

as the residence life representative and asked for some time to consider her future attendance. Dr.

Porter replied agreeing to some time and set up a meeting the following morning to discuss

Felds ideas on responding to the increasing incidents.

This situation at Premier University has several issues leading to the organizational

dilemma. Between the life threatening alcohol related incidents, the expectations of the student

staff, the response of student affairs professionals, the power dynamics of the people involved,

and the disregard for a variety of valuable input has led to the problem faced at Premier. Olivia

Felds is placed in a challenging situation where she does not want to attend the future meetings

with Dean Stanford, Dr. Timmons, and Michael Adams because her input is overlooked, she is

talked down to, and feels uncomfortable with the meeting dynamics. However, the escalating

problem facing the residential students and the obligations of her director create the pressing

need for her to attend for the fear that if the solution is prolonged in any capacity, a student may

die.

Part 2: HUMAN RESOURCE FRAME

LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 5

The Human Resource frame appeals to the needs and value of an organizations

employees as well as recognizes the significance of their interpersonal relationships. The Human

Resource frame is a valuable tool when evaluating this organizational dilemma as it draws upon

the emotion and reaction of situations, appreciates the human-ness of employees, and values

the unique qualities individuals bring. In the scope of Premier University, the emotions of the

individuals involved are clearly present and the actions and responses of the characters are

evidently emotion driven.

This case study immediately reminded me of the first slide of the Human Resource

PowerPoint for our Administration and Organization course. It was an image of two people in a

meeting who were extending an invitation to a third member to join and the quote below it read:

we want to include you in this decision without letting you affect it (7 February 2017). This is

essentially what happened at Premier. A team of professionals gathered together to address an

issue and, while all members are knowledgeable and want to resolve the problem, the input from

only a couple members was considered; swiftly eliminating that team or sometimes family

mentality the Human Resource frame pushes for. This also works against some of the

assumptions of the frame that outline some of its foundation. One assumption is that people and

organizations need each other. Organizations need ideas, energy, and talent; people need careers,

salaries, and opportunities (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.117). Given the details of the dilemma, it

seems to be a lose/lose situation on behalf of both the organization and the people of Premier.

The ideas, energy, and talent of Olivia Felds are not being appreciated or considered and the

opportunity for her to contribute professionally as to how her department will respond has been

striped at the expense of her feelings and sense of value at Premier.

LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 6

One key concept in the case study is the presence of Theory X and Theory Y styles of

management. A Theory X approach is rooted in the idea that subordinates are passive and lazy,

have little ambition, prefer to be led, and resist change, whereas a Theory Y approach would be

to arrange conditions so the people can achieve their own goals best by directing efforts toward

organizational rewards (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.123). Using a different lens to describe Theory

X and Y, we could also define Theory X as a style that manages people while Theory Y manages

the process/organization. In the case at Premier, Dean Stanford undoubtedly uses a Theory X

approach. Although he does not directly manage Felds, the presence of the power dynamic and

difference in positions/titles perpetuates the idea that she is subordinate leading him to behave

as though she may prefer to be led rather than perform independently. This could also be

because her suggestions and objections conflict with the suggestions and input of Michael

Adams (Alcohol-Drug Education Services Coordinator) whose title is more closely coupled with

the pressing issue of alcohol related incidents than hers may seem (Residence Life Area

Coordinator).

Another example of how a Theory X management style is present is though the nature of

the meeting. The current policy and procedures that are in place at Premier have clearly shown to

be inefficient in reducing the climbing rate of alcohol related incidents; warranting a change in

protocol. The suggested change primarily influences the responsibilities of Olivia Felds and how

the department of Residence Life operates. The idea that subordinates are resistant to change

could enable someone with a Theory X approach to be more aggressive when introducing ideas

of change when working with someone below them within an organization. For example, Dean

Stanford, someone who models a Theory X approach, could interpret Felds objections and

suggestions as signs of her resisting change and, instead of considering her input, he limited her
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 7

to the position of a note-taking liaison who was to report back the information back to her

supervisor.

Additional components to the Theory X and Y concepts of the Human Resource frame

are the hard and soft versions of Theory X. Hard Theory X emphasizes coercion, tight

controls, threats, and punishments while Soft Theory X tries to avoid conflict and keep

everyone happy (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.123). Dean Stanfords behavior is an example of

Hard Theory X. An example of Soft Theory X would be the behavior of Dr. James Porter, Felds

supervisor. After Felds explained what happened in the meeting and expressed that she did not

want to return to any future meetings with this group, Dr. Porter excused the behavior by saying

that her feelings could have been due to the mens preexisting relationship and asked that she

return while also scheduling a one on one meeting the following morning to discuss some of her

ideas. This is a clear example of Soft Theory X as Dr. Porter tries to avoid conflict by explaining

that her discomfort was because they all knew each other beforehand and tried to make her

happy by listening to her ideas one on one. Dr. Porter is appealing to Soft Theory X because his

explanation does not necessarily apply as Michael Adams did not seem to have an existing

relationship with Dean Stanford and his and Felds one on one would most likely result in a dead

end as he cannot attend the meetings to share what he believes is best.

Another concept from the Human Resource frame that is present in the case study is

Model I and Model II behavior. Model I behavior can be described as self-protective behavior as

an organization is seen as a dangerous place where you have to look out for yourself or

someone else may do you in while Model II behavior focuses on integrating advocacy and

inquiryand pushes for expressing ones own thoughts and feelings and to seek understanding

of others thoughts and feelings (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.165-167). In the case at Premier,
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 8

Dean Stanford exhibits Model I behavior as he swiftly selects a solution that could immediately

be put into place. With the pressures of the student newspapers and growing attention to the

issue, Dean Stanford is looking out for himself by jumping to a solution without considering

other options. He is not considering the longevity of the new proposed policy, the added stress

the fining process places on the Resident Assistants, or the input from the employees within the

department potentially upholding the new policy. Instead, he is looking for a quick solution that

will make the institution look proactive and maintain his reputation.

Examples of Model II behavior can be found in Olivia Felds response the situation. She

did research on the topic, looked at potential solutions, and considered multiple directions based

on what would fit at Premier University. She demonstrated both advocacy and inquiry through

promoting alternative policies that would both be efficient in decreasing the rate of alcohol

related incidents and lowering the feeling of sever distress in the residence hall staff. Felds

shows Model II behavior by clearly pushing for the needs of others and understanding and

recognizing the feelings of the people working in her department.

These concepts help to make sense of the dilemma through showcasing the approach and

motives between the individuals involved in formulating a solution to the problem of alcohol

related incidents. Analyzing through the lens of Model I and II behavior offer the needed

perspective of why Olivia Felds and Dean Stanford feel the way they do about the fining policy.

It also recognizes the additional factors outside of the specific problem. For example, the issue it

presents for Resident Assistants, its effectiveness as a policy, the reputation of the institution,

and the attention of the greater student population and potentially the public all effect how Felds

and Dean Stanford respond separately. Using Model I and II to analyze the dilemma allows a

third party observer the opportunity to be empathetic toward the characters and provides the
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 9

context that could potentially justify the actions of one person over the other. Given the situation

at Premier University, the reader can decipher what influencing factors have the most impact on

which characters and what that says about their motives.

In addition to using Model I and II, Theory X and Y are other useful tools to analyze the

organizational dilemma. Using Theory X and Theory Y to examining the problem centered on

the meeting explains necessary details of individuals and why they may be responding to stimuli

the way they do. It accounts for the influence of details such as titles of positions, rank within an

institution or organization, opportunity for change, level of experience, presence of authority,

and who is most affected by the decisions being made. This also helps to analyze the

organizational dilemma because it recognizes that for Theory X, the mindset of the manager or

person in power may be similar through the lens of Hard or Soft Theory X, however, the

execution of their managerial style seem significantly different. Comparing the response to Dean

Stanford and Dr. Porter, they both exhibit a Theory X approach but Stanford clearly exhibits

Hard Theory X while Porter shows Soft Theory X; both leading to an imminent poor response by

Felds. Soft Theory X usually resulting in superficial harmony with undercuts of apathy,

indifference, and smoldering resentment while Hard Theory X generates low productivity,

antagonism, militant unions, and subtle sabotage (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.123). This tool

allows for an analysis that acknowledges behavior and understands that the behavior will

generate a response.

Part 3: POLITICAL FRAME

The political frame is another lens to analyze an organizational dilemma. Viewed from

the political frame, politics is the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 10

in a context of scarcity and divergent interests (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.182). When reading the

case study of Premier University and observing how things played out, much of what took place

appeals to the concepts of the political frame. More specifically, the presence of power and

influence had a major role in how and why the characters behaved the way they did.

Similar to the human resource frame, the political frame has assumptions of its own. For

example, scarce resources and enduring differences put conflict at the center of the day-to-day

dynamics and make power the most important asset (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.189). Given the

context of the situation at Premier, conflict and power are key components that influence the

events that took place. For example, conflict is introduced when Olivia Felds voices her

objections or reservations regarding the prosed fining policy. Her doubts are met with disregard

and disrespect by Dean Stanford. When she continued to advocate for the direction she thought

was more appropriate, she was reduced to a note taker and, although rarely contributing the rest

of the meeting, felt voiceless. This is without a doubt an example of power as a form of

responding to conflict. More specifically, Dean Stanford is exerting positional power as his

position and title carry more weight than Olivia Felds does so, when confronted with conflict that

battles his decision or support, he used his position as dean to override the comments Felds had

mentioned. He continued to declare authority through position power by basically demoting her

role to a nonessential member as she was tasked with taking notes and report them back to her

boss, Dr. Porter (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.197).

Power is also exhibited through the workings of information and expertise. Power flows

to those with the information and know-how to solve the important problems (Bolman & Deal,

2013, p.197). We see one example of this in the meeting when Michael Adams is the only one of

the group members asked to give input. He is asked to present on the information he learned
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 11

from a webinar pertaining to the subject of reducing alcohol related incidents. Michael Adams

title is also the Alcohol-Drug Education Services Coordinator which makes him the expert in this

situation as these issues are his primary focus as a professional. Although this may seem like an

example of power through position, Adams title does not carry much authority over Olivia;

rather it appeals more to the presence of assumed knowledge and know-how. Another example

of information of expertise used as a source of power is through Dean Stanfords faade of

experience. When countering Felds objections, Dean Stanford says he has been in this line of

work for a number of years and regardless of what the literature says, he thinks the fining process

is a worthwhile idea to try at PU (Douglas, 2000, p.52). Time in an organization does not

necessarily mean you know how to resolve every issue appropriately, however, in this case for

example, it offers Dean Stanford an additional excuse for why his opinion means more than

Felds.

Another source of power present in this organizational dilemma is the power of

reputation. Aside from the increase and threat the alcohol related incidence pose to the students

in the residence halls at Premier, the reputation is being challenged through the gaining publicity

and attention from the student newspaper. For the past three years, the rate of alcohol related

incidents has increased. Meanwhile, the Dean of Students, the Director of Health and Wellness,

and the Director of Residence Life have been holding casual biweekly meetings. That is almost

50+ meetings between the three powerful administrators in that time frame and it took an

editorial by the student leaders for them to recognize they have to respond. The power of

reputation is also potentially fueling the power Dean Stanford has over Felds. Felds is going on

her third year at Premier while Dean Stanford has been there for 28 years and is well-know and
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 12

liked by many student, staff, faculty, and alumni (Douglas, 2000, p.50). His reputation is

something that adds a strong sense of power that is Felds does not have herself.

Another tool within the political frame to analyze the organizational dilemma at Premier

University is the concept and influence of authorities and partisans. Authorities are the

recipients or targets of influence, and the agents or initiators of social control while potential

partisans have the opposite roles as agents or initiators of influence, and target or recipients of

social control (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.195). In the situation at Premier, the student leaders

who wrote and pieced the school newspaper together are partisans doing the influencing;

pressuring the authorities to initiate a more effective sense of social control. Another example of

the influential relationship between authorities and partisans is through the expressed feelings of

the residence hall staff. According to the case study, the increase of alcohol related incidents and

transports residence hall staff have to respond to is causing a sense of sever distress. The

emotional impact the incidents are causing the employees (partisans) have been recognized by

Felds and Dr. Porter (authorities) which are initiating action.

These relationships and social factors also create the political ecosystem. The political

ecosystem is the combination and make up of partisans and authorities, titles and reputation, and

power and influence. The configuration of all of these makes the case at Premier a unique

situation. The political ecosystem then influences how and why issues occur and how and why it

gets resolved, making the political arena the overall organization or institution that is home to the

political ecosystem. For example, the concepts from this frame overlap in a way that influences

the actions of everyone involved; making the decision to come to a solution all the more

complex. One example of a political ecosystem within the political arena is the example of the

small group meeting at Premier University. The title, experiences, knowledge, reputations, and
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 13

what is at stake is different for all members at the meeting; creating an environment with

competing priorities and backgrounds. This appeals to another assumption within the Political

Frame; that coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information,

interests, and perception of reality (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.188).

The concepts of the political frame are useful tools to analyze this case study because

they offer necessary insight, deciphering some of the hidden features that might not be accounted

for from a different organizational lens. Approaching the situation at Premier University and

recognizing the influence of power allows the reader to understand the outside factors that shape

the conversation and actions of the individuals involved. Having an understanding of power also

allows the reader to empathize with the characters more. They may not have worked in a college

setting or experienced a conflict with an employer, but the reader can now empathize having the

understanding that positional power and authority play a role in why or why not the individuals

at Premier behaved the way they did. The concept of power also enables the reader to have a

breadth of understanding that power comes in multiple shapes and forms and that there are levels

of intersectionality when it comes to the sources of power; offering a variety of leverage

individuals may have and outline what makes this an organizational dilemma.

The concepts of a political ecosystem and political arena are other tools outlined in this

frame that offer a deeper scope of analyzation. Understanding that political ecosystems and

political arenas exists offers a holistic approach that includes the acknowledgment of competing

priorities, departmental influence, access to knowledge and resources, while keeping the initial

situation in mind. In the example at Premier University, having an understanding of the situation

surrounding alcohol related incidents and the political ecosystem and arena, the reader can make

an informed opinion on whos input is most valuable and how the solution should be approached.
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 14

It also allows a level of predictability. Knowing the workings of political ecosystems and arenas,

the reader can gage how much influence concepts from the political frame really have. For

example, political activity is more visible and dominant under conditions of diversity than of

homogeneity (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.190). Recognizing the factors that make up a political

ecosystem and arena, we can use that knowledge to predict what type of political activity we

could expect.

Part 4: LESSONS & RESOLUTION

Analyzing the situation at Premier University through the human resource and political

frames offers a set of tools that are useful when dissecting what is truly happening at the heart of

the issue and is causing the problem. From a general lens, there is clearly some tension between

Dean Stanford and Olivia Felds. These two frames allow the reader to understand why the

tension exists and highlight some key takeaways that could potentially make a situation like this

more successful in the future.

From the human resources frame, one of the major lessons is that people are powerful

when you empower them. With the example of Premier University, Dr. Porter empowered Olivia

Felds to represent the department of Residence Life at the planning meeting. This level of

responsibility motivated her to pull from her own experiences, do some research, and prepare a

thoughtful and thorough method of responding to the incidents. This empowerment, however,

was then taken from her by Dean Stanford when he disregarded her input and objections when it

was not the most popular opinion in the room. He then took her power from further contribution

by demoting her to a formal note-taker for Dr. Porter. This action set an attitude for everyone in

the room. Both Dr. Timmons and Michael Adams did not respond to Dean Stanfords comment,
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 15

allowing Felds to not only feel out of place but also voiceless. Through the human resource

frame we also learn that this action also stripes a whole population of people from representation.

Knowing that Felds is an advocate for the Resident Advisors and knowing of their feelings of

sever distress, we now know the importance of resolving an issue while also considering the

emotions and affect it may have on the employees.

Another lesson gained by using the human resource frame as a tool for analysis is the

value of having an intentional managerial style. As we gather from the case study, Theory X is a

guiding approach some of the authority figures use to conduct business. Between Hard Theory X

and Soft Theory X, they human resource frame allows us to know that both approaches have an

unfavorable outcome in terms of employee happiness, autonomy, and engagement. Knowing the

attitudes and methods Theory X is rooted in, we have learned to expect that employees will most

likely exhibit antagonism, subtle sabotage, undercurrents of apathy, and/or indifference as a

result (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.123). This offers the valuable lesson that enables employers and

managers to reevaluate their approach as well as foster better habits of empowering their

coworkers.

The political frame also offers valuable lessons from using its concepts as a lens for

analysis. Looking at the influence of power in the case study, we can see how diverse and fluid

power can be. For example, the power of the student newspaper and the power of Dean Stanford

look incredibly different and hold very different platforms of influence but are examples of

power nonetheless; one appealing to the power of reputation and the other appealing to positional

power. Knowing that power is found, cultivated, and used in a variety of ways, the major lesson

learned in this situation with this organizational frame is what power is going to be the most

influential and inspire the most change.

LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 16

A second lesson from the political frame is recognizing the dichotomy between

authorities and partisans. Having the ability to identify the platforms of influence and control

both parties have of the other allows us to understand the amount of opportunity we have when

one may have membership as an authority or as a partisan. The lesson also extends to how the

balance between authority and partisans contributes to the relationship. For example, if partisan

opposition is too powerful, authority systems my collapseand if partisans respect or fear them

enough, the authority or power remains intact (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.196). This lesson

promotes that we need to work to reach this balance to maintain a level of productive rapport

when working with and within these platforms.

These lessons also inspire some of the resolutions going forward. Given the situation at

Premier University, we see that input, managerial style and power are all concepts servilely

impacting the productivity of the group. Looking forward to the next meeting, I would

recommend that it be help within a meeting space in the department of Residence Life and that

Olivia Felds lobbies for the support of Dr. Porter for her ideas. Keeping that in mind, this will

allow for a whole new space, getting away from the tension the previous space may perpetuate,

and allowing Felds to report the input from her boss that is in favor of Felds suggestions. This

would offer the chance to bring her ideas back on the table for discussion and gain momentum

since both Olivia and Dr. Porter think this is the best direction. This recommendation promotes

egalitarianism where employees are empowered to make important decisions, provide input

from their perspectives, and essentially share some of the power (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.153).

This egalitarian concept reduces some of the positional power members may have in the setting

at Premier while also inspiring a more group oriented decision making process.
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 17

Another resolution that I believe should be an approach to consider for the next meeting

would be inviting the Vice President for Student Affairs to attend. Much of what was at play in

the scope of the political frame was power and the sources of power. Since both directors and the

Dean of Students all report to the Vice President of Student Affairs, it might be beneficial to

have them as a moderator for conversation an input. Having the Vice President for Student

Affairs present would introduce a new source of power; control of rewards. The Vice President

of Student Affairs has the ability to deliver jobs, money, and political support, all of which the

members of the group need (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.197). Having an authoritative body, offers

an advantage for Olivia Felds as she can appeal to someone higher than Dean Stanford and

Michael Adams.

A third recommendation I would make for the people at Premier University is that Olivia

Felds should connect with Michael Adams before the next meeting. It would be beneficial for her

to have a one-on-one conversation with someone who Dean Stanford supports. This would be a

great opportunity for her to have time to explain her alternative approaches, what the research

says about the current approach, and how both will influence Premier University. This is an

example of identifying relevant relationshipsand who needs to be influenced to foster

support for ones own beliefs (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.213). In this case, Felds would create a

relationship that would beneficial going into the next meeting; something that she did not have in

the first meeting.

Using the political and human resource frames to analyze the organizational dilemma at

Premier University adds a perspective for the reader that they might not have necessarily had

otherwise. These two frames outline the importance of contextual information as well as

recognizes the variety of influences surrounding the issue. Looking through these lenses also
LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 18

provides a platform to foresee how current behavior or systems could influence how employees

will respond. In addition to using these frames to understand the organizational dilemma, they

also offer insight on how to modify the situation going forward. In the case at Premier

University, Olivia Felds can use the political and human resource frames to her advantage and

make the next meeting more successful.

LESS DRINKING OR PROFESSIONAL SINKING 19

References

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2013). Reframing organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Douglas, K. B. (2000). Less drinking or professional sinking. In F. K. Stage & M. Dannells

(Eds.), Linking theory to practice: Case studies for working with college

students (2nd ed.), pp. 71-74. New York, NY: Routledge.